Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:38:02.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Audit for Patients Who Are Discharged on Community Treatment order (CTO) in North East Part of Essex: Exploring the Section Paperwork and the Readmissions in 2 Year Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Bushra Ahmed*
Affiliation:
Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Colchester, United Kingdom
Hem Raj Pal
Affiliation:
Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Colchester, United Kingdom
Rashed Alhadi
Affiliation:
NHS Tayside Foundation Trust, Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

  • To find out discrepancies around community treatment order section paperwork and renewal hearings.

  • Explore if CTO is helpful in delaying relapse of mental illness.

Methods

All inpatients from general adult male and female wards in the North East Essex area in the last 3–5 years who were detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act and were discharged on a Community treatment order were included. All included patients were followed up for a period of two years and data was reviewed to know if the standard guidelines regarding the CTO paperwork completion and renewal hearings were followed.

Data about episodes of further recalls to hospital, further revocation or discharges on CTO during that two year period for these patients is included.

Information about the timely filling of the CTO forms and uploading on the system upon readmission is explored wherever applicable.

Finally, the time duration between discharges and each readmission is explored.

Results

Total no. of patients: 13, Male: 10, Female: 3

Out of the 13 patients,

One had 4 readmissions in the consequent two year period (Days since last discharge – 158, 80, 14, 365 days), duration of each admission: (39, 9, 71, 53) days.

Two had 2 readmissions (on days 623 and 80: On day 65 and 9), Duration of each stay (6 and 90 days; 80 and 164 days).

Four patients had 1 readmission (on days 683, 133, 30, 723) and duration of stay is (14, 33, 1510 and 1460 days).

Six patients never had any admission.

As for the tribunal hearing, one patient's tribunal hearing was missed, one of them did not attend, one had his CTO rescinded and one was admitted soon after. Rest of the patients had their regular timely hearings and were regularly reviewed in the community.

Out of 13, only 3 patients had appealed against the CTO, had tribunal hearing.

Out of 13 patients, only one patient had his CTO lapsed and he had two readmissions during the 2 years follow up.

Delay in admission following recall was due to section 135 being issued.

CTO3 paperwork was missing in two cases.

A second CTO3 or recall notice was issued in 4 cases, in 1 case, reason was not documented, in 2 cases, patient agreed for informal stay but later did not comply with care plan. In one case, reason was not documented.

Conclusion

CTO paperwork are missed in rare cases and could be avoided by reminders from Mental Health Act Office.

CTO renewal hearings take place regularly as per mental health act guidelines, though in rare cases, meeting is missed. This could be avoided by having patients discharged on CTO to be booked for timely reviews beforehand.

The audit is too small and is inconclusive to indicate if CTOs prevent readmissions and relapses and hence future study with more sample size is called for.

Type
5 Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.